Talk:Jonathan Archer/archive
Archer's biography Here's the timeline of Archer's career from : * Rank at Retirement: Admiral, Chief of Staff, Starfleet Command * Commanding officer, Enterprise NX-01 2150-2160 * Ambassador to Andoria 2169-2175 * Federation Councilman 2175-2183 * President, UFP 2184-2192 Hi-rez screen caps rock.--Chuckhoffmann 07:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Dang right they do! Does this mean that this info. is canon completely, as in at those pages (i.e.: Federation President) we can add that Archer was president from 2184-2192? And so on for Ambassadors, Federation Council, exc? -AJHalliwell 16:55, 1 May 2005 (UTC) :: I listened to Mirror Darkly, Part II Commentary at Startrek.com and Mike Sussman stated that he included on his Bio a Serial number did anyone see that on their Hi-rez screen caps. Rl3058 ::: Here is the full text of the bio from "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II" It was posted on the web by episode writer Mike Susman. He went on to say that it was hastily put together and went through no forms of approval by the higher ups. The section in italics was not shown on screen. :::* STARFLEET PERSONNEL FILE: Archer, Jonathan :::* Serial Number: SA-022-9237-CY :::* Rank at retirement: Admiral, Chief of Staff, Starfleet Command :::* Former Assignments: :::** Commanding officer, Enterprise NX-01, 2150-2160 :::** Ambassador to Andoria, 2169-2175 :::** Federation Councilman, 2175-2183 :::** President, UFP 2184-2192 :::* Birthplace: Upstate New York, North America, Earth :::* Parents: Henry and Sally Archer "Son of famed warp specialist Henry Archer, Jonathan Archer was appointed captain of Starfleet's first warp five starship, Enterprise NX-01. As an explorer and peacemaker, his name is among the most recognized in the Federation, and his pioneering voyages aboard the Enterprise are known to school children on dozens of worlds, many of which were unknown to humans in Archer's lifetime. Historian John Gill called Archer the "greatest explorer of the 22nd Century." Archer earned an impressive list of commendations during his career, including a Medal of Valor, with clusters, the Star Cross, the Preantares Ribbon of Commendation, and the Federation Citation of Honor. Archer was also appointed an honorary member of the Andorian Guard by General Thy'lek Shran in 2164. He's the only human to have two planets named in his honor: Archer's Planet in the Gamma Trianguli sector, and Archer IV, which orbits 61 Ursae Majoris. Archer IV was the first M-Class world charted by the famous explorer. Although the planet was uninhabitable throughout the 22nd Century due to toxic pollen in the atmosphere, an antidote to the pollen was discovered early in the 2200's. Today, the population of Archer IV numbers more than seven hundred million." "Archer died peacefully in his home in upstate New York in the year 2245, exactly one day after attending the christening ceremony of the first Federation Starship Enterprise, NCC-1701." ::: --docdude316 03:08, 3 May 2005 (UTC) :::: I believe the rule of thumb regarding on-screen text is that it's canon unless contradicted by dialogue. For example, Geordi's bio in "The Next Phase" gave his mother's name as Alvera K. La Forge but "Interface" established her name to be Silva La Forge. :::: One major exception to this would be the registry number of the , which was given the registry NCC-1305-E in dialogue in "Where Silence Has Lease" but was given a more consistent registry number on screen readouts in "Contagion". Johnny's Rank I thought he was promoted to Admiral when Enterprise returned to Earth. Aren't those Admiral pips on his uniform at the end of TATV? Emerald Knight 03:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC) :They still refer to him as Captain and there's the line "I've heard he's already been tapped for admiral" which indicates he's not at that rank yet. He still wears four pips in TATV which indicate Captain's rank, though the dress uniform with the high collar does make him look a lot more important, so maybe that's where the confusion came from. Jean Prouvaire 01:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC) PNA? Can someone make it clear what it is that neads attention? I am willing to work on the page, If I have an idea what Memory Alpha is looking for. -- User:Terran Officer Sept 19, 2005. 6:48pm EST : I'm sure this could use more info on his tenure as commander of the Enterprise. Also needed is more info on his relationships, including those with his Enterprise crew (and Porthos!) I will probably be writing info for Trip Tucker, the Ericksons, and Porthos in the near future, though. --From Andoria with Love 01:04, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC) : The recent revision made by an anon needs to be fixed, as it includes some info that can be taken as personal opinions. In fact, the article in its entirety needs work -- grammar, spelling and what not. Some info is also told in the wrong perspective. --From Andoria with Love 16:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC) Just curious Did the character Johnathon Archer or the Enterprise he commanded "exist" before Star Trek: Enterprise? : Short answer, no. The character or Archer wasn't reference before Enterprise, although he has been sort of ret-conned into it. For example, in , we here of a planet called Archer IV, which we learn in Enterprise, was named for the captain. Also, in Nemesis, we see a okodogram listing the , obviously an attempt to make some reference to him. I hope this helps. --Jaz talk | novels 06:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Schenectady Several references to "Upstate New York" were just changed to "Schenectady, New York", which apparently is a small city in NY state. Is there any canon reference to that city (in that case, cite), or is this speculation based on something (in that case, move to background info), or is it fan-fiction (in that case, remove). I will change those references back to "Upstate New York" if there's no explanation given. -- Cid Highwind 14:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC) : Archer's Wikipedia page claims that Schenectady is mentioned in the section of his biography not seen on-screen but created for "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II", the paragraph regarding his death. --Defiant 14:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC) :: We have a paragraph on this talk page that was not shown on-screen and meets that description, but does not support Schenectady: ::* Archer died peacefully in his home in upstate New York in the year 2245, exactly one day after attending the christening ceremony of the first Federation Starship Enterprise, NCC-1701. :: I say it gets removed, unless someone can come up with the actual source. --OuroborosCobra talk 14:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC) :::The reference was removed. Never was a specific city or town in New York named as his birthplace. --From Andoria with Love 03:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC) :::: And it seems to be back... --TommyRaiko 20:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC) :: I have removed it again, and before I get accused by someone of too many "reversions" (long story), I am not the person who removed it the first time, Shran was. Since he removed it, no further evidence has been presented to support the claim, therefore I have removed it again. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC) ::: You did the right thing, Cobra. I'll go ahead and alert the anon who keeps posting the information; if he continues to do so afterwords without a canon, valid source, I'll revert it again and then protect the article from being edited by non-registered users. --From Andoria with Love 01:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC) The New York thing Is the only reference to Archer being born in New York the above-quoted Sussman-written graphic from "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II"? If so isn't it made non-canonical by the dialogue in which he flatly tells Phlox that he's lived in San Francisco all his life? CzechOut ☎ | 13:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC) :Not at all. I know people born in England that were brought up in Canada. They state that they've lived in Canada all their lives... even though that's not precisely true. -- Sulfur 14:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Fair enough. Found the exact (dialogue) source of the claim ( ); changed article slightly to make it more clear. As the pilot, "Broken Bow" tends to loom a little larger than a mid-3rd season episode, so it's probably helpful to some users (and certainly to me) to make it absolutely clear the NY thing isn't just a Sussman pen-scratching in the waning days of the program. CzechOut ☎ | 01:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC) ::Archer also said he was from upstate New York in . --From Andoria with Love 02:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Scotty and Archer's Beagle I made a note that the incident with Archer's beagle was in the alternate reality since the article didn't make that clear. My only other concern is that Scotty only says "Admiral Archer" and at this point in time Archer had stepped down as President of the Federation. Nowhere is it stated that he rejoined Starfleet and he would have been called "President Archer" since that was his highest position. It is possible that this is one of his descendants or another admiral who happens to be named Archer. Should the fact that it is not explicitly stated to be this Archer be noted? Also, Scotty was born in 2222 so his birthday wasn't affected by the alternate timeline and he was 11 when the Narada changed the timeline so the beagle incident would have been after the timeline change.IndyK1ng 23:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC) : Which is why i removed the ref altogether, seeing as "Admiral Archer" is mentioned in the top disambig on the page. Honestly, we can only speculate, but the namedrop (in combination with the beagle ref) is too close to be a coincidence. Unfortunately it would seem that unless it was stated in dialog or by the writers as being intentional, then it is a different person. --Alan 23:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC) ::While I agree that the reference shouldn't be mentioned in the in-universe portion of the article, I think the reference is clear enough to go into the "Background" section. We don't know in-universe whether Archer is Jonathan Archer; however, it's quite clear that out-of-universe, the combination of "Archer" and "beagle" is a reference (direct or indirect) to Enterprise s captain. —Josiah Rowe 03:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC) ::I found a quotation from Kurtzman and Orci confirming that "Admiral Archer" is an Enterprise reference. http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_16696.html: :::Alex: Admiral Archer gets referenced. :::Bob: That's Enterprise. ::Hope that helps. —Josiah Rowe 05:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC) A reference does not mean it is the same Archer. See this article's background section and the section in the article on Admiral Archer.IndyK1ng 05:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC) ::I know that. I wrote some of those sections, and I'm not advocating moving the text to the in-universe sections of the article, or merging Archer with Jonathan Archer. I was just pointing out that the writers had confirmed that it was an intentional reference. —Josiah Rowe 05:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC) ::Actually, upon reflection, I think we could treat this the same way that we treat Picard's remark about having met Sarek at "his son's wedding" in the Spock article. We didn't create a separate page for "unnamed son of Sarek" based on that line; we accepted the writers' expressed intention that Picard was referring to Spock, and mention it (with a caveat) in Spock. Why can't we do the same here? —Josiah Rowe 20:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC) :::It just seems ridiculous that Scotty could have met an Admiral Archer who was actually Jonathan Archer in the timeframe we are discussing. At the time of Scotty's birth in the early 23rd century, Archer would already have been about 100 years old, having been born in the early 22nd century. By the time Scotty would have been able to operate or modify a transporter, even as a young man, would make Archer well over 100, approaching 150 even. Even if Scotty got a hold of his dog after Archer's passing, Archer was mentioned to be a former President of the Federation in his 23rd century bio in the ENT finale, making it odd that he would be referred to as "admiral" rather than "president". This is different from the Sarek case in that it was fully possible for Spock to be that unnamed son of Sarek (especially since we knew Sarek to be quite old and Spock's only brother to be deceased), this one is more unlikely and thus makes it more difficult to accept as an assumption. -- Captain MKB 21:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC) ::::Was it Jonathan Archer? Maybe. Was it Porthos? No. A dog living for a century? That's a bit unlikely even for Star Trek. I kinda think it was Archer's kid, but if it was the same dog probably not.- JustPhil 21:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC) ::I agree that it's highly improbable that the dog was Porthos. But barring Archer's presidency, it seems quite possible that the admiral was Archer. Was Archer's presidency mentioned in the ENT finale? The article suggests that it comes from "In a Mirror, Darkly". I haven't seen either episode since their initial broadcast, and I don't recall whether the detail about Archer becoming president of the Federation was from dialogue in either episode or from the biographical display. If the latter, it can be put aside, the way we put aside the details of Archer's death. If the former, then that presents more of a problem for identifying Scotty's admiral as Jonathan Archer. —Josiah Rowe 21:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC) :::::The detail about Archer's presidency is from the bio screen, so yes, it's "secondary tier" canon. Additionally, Scotty's use of the phrase "prize beagle" instead of "pet beagle" could suggest that Archer became a breeder of beagles, after Porthos. -- 21:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC) ::Right, then. If the presidency comes from the info screen, which Mike Sussman himself said wasn't necessarily canonical, I think we should go with something said on screen rather than something from an info screen. ::Heck, maybe the timelines diverge earlier than we thought. Perhaps in the "prime" timeline, Archer became President of the Federation in 2184, but in the new timeline he never served in that post. After all, the Defiant came from the "prime" timeline, and Scotty beamed the beagle in the new one... but now I'm being speculative and silly. ::Seriously, I think that given the writers' stated intent, this is the same as the "Sarek's son" situation. Which means that Archer should be merged back here. —Josiah Rowe 04:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC) ::::::Note: in the United States, former presidents (and vice-presidents) properly revert to their previous titles. So it's entirely reasonable that Archer would revert to "Admiral" after his term as Federation president was complete. Powers 03:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC) :::::::Bones was 137 and healthy in . —Scott (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC) ::::::::Really? I have never heard anyone refer to George HW Bush as "Lieutenant Bush", but have heard him called "Mr President" many times since 1993. Dangerdan97 21:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC) :: I think it's unlikely that "Admiral Archer" is a descendant of Jonathan Archer. Why wouldn't a spouse or children be listed in his biography read by Hoshi in "In a Mirror Darkly?" Also, the appearance of a Romulan ship that makes quick work of a Federation starship and then disappears would no doubt change Archer's plans, regardless of his age. He would want to help in a 'hands on fashion' meaning he'd likely reactivate as an Admiral in Starfleet rather than become a politician. With the writers explicitly stating that it is a nod to Enterprise, the fact that the last name is used, and that a beagle is what get's transported... I mean how much more does one need? Agent Xu-- 01:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC) :::::::::Proof. — Morder 01:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC) :::::::::: That's all you're going to get. Even if they identified "Jonathan" Archer in the movie, people would speculate it was Jonathan Archer II or Jr. What you want is for the scene in the movie to say, "Admiral Jonathan Archer's beagle, the same Jonathan Archer who commanded the NX-01" and that just isn't going to happen. They gave as overt a subtle nod as they were able. To speculate further beyond what the writers acknowledged out of universe seems... futile." Agent Xu-- 02:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC) ::::::::::: Even if this similar to the "Sarek's son" situation, I think common sense tells us that this should not flatly be treated as being Jonathan Archer and the dog should definitely not be the same Porthos. At the very least, this should not be included in the body of the article without caveat. I don't think "Admiral Archer" deserves a separate article, but I don't think the reference is definitive either. --Praetor Neral 22:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC) :::::::::Robert Orci has already stated it is indeed Jonathan Archer therefore there's no need to continue this. — Morder 22:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Merge proposal (from Talk:Archer) The link demonstrates that K&O intended this Admiral Archer to be Jonathan Archer from Enterprise. So surely the pages should be conflated? : Hm. I can see both sides of this. On the one hand, a "reference" (out of universe) isn't necessarily an "identification" (in universe) — even if "Admiral Archer" were a different character with a fondness for beagles, it could still be a reference to Jonathan Archer. On the other hand, the writers' intentions do seem to be that this is Jonathan Archer. : Upon reflection, I think that we have a precedent for this: Picard's remark about having met Sarek at "his son's wedding". This could be a reference to someone other than Spock, but the writers' intentions were that it was Spock, so we mention it in Spock, rather than having a separate page for "Sarek's son". By that precedent, this should be merged into Jonathan Archer. But I don't feel that strongly about it. —Josiah Rowe 16:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC) :: Wouldn't Jonathan Archer be referred to as "President" Archer, as that would be the highest office he ever held? Dangerdan97 20:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC) ::: Exactly. That's why I think the Archer that Scotty mentioned was a decedent of Jonathan Archer.JustPhil 20:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC) ::::if he isn't Jonathan ! are you sure is he a Human ? if he is a decedent, maybe is an hybrid or maybe a female or a maybe both female hybrid !!! (???) "category:Humans" isn't sure for me ! C-IMZADI-4 21:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC) :As discussed at Talk:Jonathan Archer#Scotty and Archer's Beagle, Jonathan Archer as President of the Federation comes from an on-screen graphic, which is on a lower "tier" of canonicity than dialogue. Plus, Mike Sussman, who wrote that on-screen graphic, said that it wasn't necessarily canonical. —Josiah Rowe 21:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC) :::::No. If the Federation President is anything like the President of the United States, then after his time in office has ended, Archer should be referred to by his highest title prior to becoming President. Referring to a former American president as "Mr. President" or "President Such-and-such" is technically incorrect, as the title does not follow them out of office. If you were to address George W. Bush, for example, you should call him "Governor Bush" instead of "Mr. President." If you were to address Barack Obama after his time as President is over, you should call him "Senator Obama." – Randy1012 01:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC) ::::::That's not true. Former presidents are always referred to as "Mr. President". - Brandon Rhea (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC) :::::::Maybe the Federation uses different conventions than the US. Maybe Scotty screwed up on Archer's real title. Maybe Jonathan Archer (if it was him) preferred to be called "Admiral". Point is, I don't think the whole "Admiral" vs. "President" thing really helps us.– Cleanse 09:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC) US Presidents are traditionally referred to as 'Mr President' after they leave office, but this is convention only. George Washington preferred to be referred to as General Washington in both correspondence and person after he left the Presidency. One of the White House tapes from during the Cuban Missle Crisis features Eisenhower telling JFK to call him General in order to avoid confusion (IIRC Truman is also on the line!). Back on topic, I think the principle of ockham's razor is useful here (as it is in the 'Sarek's son' or 'Captain Sulu' questions); there's no need to create multiples. K& O say it's an Enterprise reference, there's a character called Archer who later becomes an Admiral in Enterprise. There's no other plausible candidate for who it is referring to. Ockham's razor says Jonathan Archer. – Jim Smith 09:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC) :::::::I've put up a formal merge proposal. There's also a discussion at Talk:Jonathan Archer, but I think we should continue it here. :::::::I support a merge. :::::::* We assume "Cadet Vader" is the same guy/gal as Vader :::::::* We assume that "Chapel" is Christine Chapel :::::::* We have a quote from the writers that this was an Enterprise reference. :::::::* We know Humans can live that long in the Star Trek universe. :::::::* This Archer is fond of beagles. Jonathan Archer is fond of beagles. :::::::Together, I think it is quite clear that we should follow the obvious as just say it was Jonathan.– Cleanse 10:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC) ::::::::Actually I don't think we had assumed anything because it was stated (by the writers?) that they were intended to be the same. — Morder 10:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC) :Well, we have the writers confirming that this line was a reference to Enterprise. Really, I don't think that it's worth quibbling over the meaning of "reference". I'll support the merger, with the caveat that there should be an indented and italicized note with the info, like there is in Spock at the discussion of his wedding. —Josiah Rowe 17:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC) :::::::::I was a little torn about this, but if the writers stated that they intended this to be a reference to Jonathan, I think it's reasonable for us to merge here, given the other precedents.--31dot 18:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC) ::::::::::if Archer was the 1st UFP President in 2163, he might have taken office before the charter was signed, in ...these are the voyages (ent: last ep) Archer is signing the charter but why should a Starfleet Captain sign a charter that creates a new government as big as the UFP? maybe he already said yes to "being tapped as Admiral" as Reed said and if so maybe he was the "UFP Fleet Admiral" a rank equal to CinC of the all military forces like the US President is, the fact that the UFP was just created when Archer would have become president maybe the title was not yet worked out (Vulcans had a council as it leadership not one person, Andoria and Tellar might have a ruling body as well and not one person) from 1776 - 1789 the US Constitution that governs it today did not back then ::::::::::Maybe Archer and his beagle took an unexpected time-travel into the future? - 19:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC) :::::::::::Oppose merge, for now. Although in the real world it was meant as a reference to Jonathan Archer, we do not know if, in-universe, it is the same man. It's the same deal with the Captain Sulu mentioned in . We just can't assume anything. For all we know, it's Jonathan Archer's son and he picked up his dad's affinity for beagles, possibly having lived with them while growing up. Now, if Orci and Kurtzman were to say, specifically, that the line was meant to refer to Jonathan Archer in-universe, that would be another story. At the moment, though, all they said was that it they meant it as an in-joke homage to Archer and Porthos; they have not explained what the reference means from an in-universe perspective. And why we're assuming Cadet Vader and the dead Vader from are the same person, I'll never know. --From Andoria with Love 22:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC) ::::::::Why? We use a similar source for Nyota as the first name of Uhura Prime... — Morder 22:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC) :::::::::::...which has production resources stating clearly that they decided on the name of Nyota. Here, the writers have just stated that it's a reference to Enterprise, not that it was the same person. Having said that, I'm not going to make a big deal out of this; to me, it really is the same person, I would just like a bit more verification that it was meant to be the same person. So... meh, whatever, support merge. :-P --From Andoria with Love 22:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC) ::::::::::::Maybe we should merge the Sulu's together. I separated the page years ago because there was some disagreement (in non-canon sources) on who that Sulu was. This Admiral Archer is the exact same situation with Captain Sulu, in that the name was a reference to another character, although it wasn't explicit. I have no problem either way, although we should absolutely not have a 107-year-old Porthos. ::::::::::::At Memory Alpha, btw, there is no such thing as "secondary tier" canon. We'd just have to assume Archer was a "General Eisenhower"-like figure and didn't like his Ambassadorial and Presidential titles.--Tim Thomason 23:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC) ---- Bob Orci has confirmed that the line was a reference to Jonathan Archer, so article has been merged. From the comments section here: :"...Admiral Archer is a reference to the Archer we all know and love, and yes he would be over 100, which is a likely life expectancy in a futuristic space faring race of humans (as depicted by McCoy's (Deforest Kelley) in THE NEXT GENERATION." So, there ya go. :) --From Andoria with Love 07:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Opening quote I added an opening quote to this page, which I feel is appropriate, but I am, of course, open to suggestions if anyone thinks there's a better quote that can be used. -Angry Future Romulan 16:37, May 24, 2010 (UTC) Removed uncited background info I've removed the following uncited bg info as I'm unable to find sources for them: :Bakula stated (half-jokingly) that he thought that Archer's middle name was Beckett. This is a reference to Dr. Sam Beckett, a character that Bakula is well known for having played in the television series '' prior to taking up his role on Enterprise. :Archer's first name was originally to have been "Jackson", but eventually the name was switched to "Jonathan", as research turned up exactly one person with the name of "Jackson Archer." '' -- TrekFan Talk 16:20, January 21, 2011 (UTC) Removed *In the ''Quantum Leap episode "A Leap For Lisa", Sam leaps into his holographic friend Al, who is on trial for murdering the wife of an officer in the US Navy named Commander Riker. Commander Riker is also the name of Captain Picard's first officer on The Next Generation. This episode also guest stars Terry Farrell, who later went on to play Jadzia Dax on Deep Space Nine. --> I dont see the relevance in this statement. How is that Riker related to WT Riker and whats the connection? Also, the Terry Farrell appearance (I dont recall seeing her in that quantum leap episode but whatever) is/should be mentioned in her profile as Archer's profile page is not the appropriate place. Distantlycharmed 00:38, January 29, 2011 (UTC) :If anything, this should be mentioned on Scott Bakula, Terry Farrell and Jonathan Frakes. I don't see the significance of it being on the character page. -- TrekFan Open a channel 00:43, January 29, 2011 (UTC) The first part of the statement is some sort of round-about absurd connection kind of thing. Like he was called Riker just like Picard's first officer and ...mmmK..so...what does that have to do with Archer? No one he knows was called Riker and Al got nothing to do with any of it. Distantlycharmed 01:06, January 29, 2011 (UTC) Incites removed Two of the "incites" I added to the article were just removed, without either the change to the article or the edit summary explaining anything, really. So, I'm restating my question here: In the sidebar, *"rank" states: Admiral (retired), Admiral (alternate reality) *"status" states: Retired (2233) Reinstated (alternate reality, prior to 2258) Where, in (which is now mentioned as the source of all this information) is it stated that the Archer mentioned there is this Archer? And, even if we assume that Admiral Archer from ST XI is this Archer - where's the information from that Archer is now longer in retirement but has instead been "reinstated"? If this is based on the fact that Archer managed to put Scotty on that lousy planet - that might have been him "pulling some strings" out of retirement. He has apparently been the President of the UFP, after all - surely some people still active in the chain of command would still like to do him a favor. -- Cid Highwind 11:41, January 29, 2011 (UTC) :My mistake; you're right – there is no info about Archer's current status in the alternate reality. I've included another citation for his rank, however – one that proves it's author intent that they're one and the same Archer. --Defiant 12:11, January 29, 2011 (UTC) It's news to me that we're now accepting "author intent" on a par with information that is really from the show. In the past, we've gone out of our way to not do that. Which policy/guideline do you base that on? -- Cid Highwind 12:30, January 29, 2011 (UTC) :It'd be purely idiotic not to accept author intent, especially when backed up by the production itself! This entire site is based on the supposition that each Star Trek episode is not set in a different alternate timeline from each other. How do we know that's not the case? Common sense, probability and author intent – the same exact methods we can use to determine that the "Admiral Archer" referenced in the film is the same as the Jonathan Archer from Star Trek: Enterprise. Stop nitpicking for the sake of it; obviously, author intent matters! --Defiant 12:45, January 29, 2011 (UTC) ::Exactly. Use common sense. Suppose the writers created "Ensign Bob Fletcher" in one episode, then referred to a "Lieutenant Fletcher" in another. In this hypothetical, the writers confirm it's the same person. Furthermore, in canon there's no reason the Fletchers have to be separate characters. Common sense would indicate that we follow the writer's intentions and note in Bob's article that he got promoted. Jon's situation is exactly the same. ::Memory Alpha articles would be thrown into chaos if we suddenly demanded references to characters to use their full name to be valid. Is the "Dr. Lucas" mentioned in really Jeremy Lucas of the Augment arc? Or did Phlox have two Human friends named Dr. Lucas? That's pretty much what it's come down to. ::I'm not really sure why this has suddenly all become controversial again. This was already discussed above under "Scotty and Archer's Beagle" and "Merge proposal (from Talk:Archer)".–Cleanse ( talk | ) 13:02, January 29, 2011 (UTC) :Cid, it'd be a different matter if author intent alone was to be counted as canon, or if the author intent contradicted the canon evidence, but this does neither; the probable on-screen evidence is backed up by the author intent. Therefore, it's acceptable. --Defiant 13:12, January 29, 2011 (UTC) Oh, we're already at "idiotic" now? Great... I'll tell you what I think is idiotic, then - for example claiming to be be a "canon" encyclopedia while adding information that clearly isn't. Especially if it would be so easy to keep that information without resorting to fanon cutesy, by just adding it to some background section. Claiming "common sense" when talking about a 150-years old President that came back out of retirement to be an Admiral again, and who even still had his 110-years old dog (give or take some years) is great stuff, too. Last but not least, please don't try to suggest that I have ulterior motives here, thankyouverymuch. I'm not "nitpicking for the sake of it", but I'm really convinced that this article (and, by extension, this encyclopedia) loses if assumptions are added as facts. -- Cid Highwind 15:09, January 29, 2011 (UTC) :I'm sorry you took personally that sentence "It'd be purely idiotic not to accept author intent", as it wasn't meant as a personal comment – I doubted you were actually doing that, which was why I used "it'd be" rather than "it's." Can you can cite a policy/guideline that states that probable on-screen evidence, corroborated by author intent, isn't canon? I'd be interested, as my ultimate goal is to improve the article - not to get into any petty squabbles (and I'm not suggesting, by any means, that the latter is true of you, Cid). --Defiant 16:16, January 29, 2011 (UTC) Memory Alpha:Canon policy, specifically section "Production and reference materials" states that "Background information from the production staff" (#3 of that list, giving "interviews" as an example, which basically is "author intent made explicit") "may be referenced in Trek universe articles, but should be formatted as background information". -- Cid Highwind 16:37, January 29, 2011 (UTC) :But that doesn't say anything that I find appropriate for this particular case, as it says nothing about "if backing up probable on-screen evidence", it should be bg info or not. It doesn't seem appropriate. --Defiant 16:46, January 29, 2011 (UTC) :::The information does not belong there in the sidebar. Nowhere in the movie does it say anything about Jonathan Archer having been reinstated to Admiral. That "reinstated" term itself is completely made up by whoever inserted that information into Archer's sidebar. If it was taken from the author, it belongs in a background note at best, just as we have done with lots of other similar items. Use common sense, yes, but that doesnt mean you make up stuff as you go along. The only on screen information we have on Archer is the random musings of Scotty on Delta Vega stating he was put there because he messed around with Admiral Archer's prized beagle. And that is all we go by. How you take that as meaning he was reinstated and presently active in Starfleet is beyond me. That info is wrong, inappropriate where it currently stands and non-encyclopedic and the author's intend, if so contradictory with common sense (i.e. Archer's and his dog's age) belongs in the background note. Distantlycharmed 17:02, January 29, 2011 (UTC) The same policy also contains (in the section "Citations") the requirement "that all statements of fact be supported by reference to identified source material that is a 'valid resource'". If something is just "probable" (and to be honest, I think the assumption of a 150 years old admiral is less than that), it means that it is not properly referenced - otherwise it would simply be the case, not "probably". -- Cid Highwind 17:06, January 29, 2011 (UTC) ::::Made a few changes, including the sidebar, complaints welcome; though think this has the least amount of "presumptions" based on bg info. - 17:49, January 29, 2011 (UTC) For what it's worth, I couldn't find a reference to the 2233 retirement date, either. It is claimed to be from IAMD2 here and on the date article, but the on-screen biography (which is quoted at the top of this talk page) doesn't mention any of it. In fact, it states that he retired from presidency in 2192 and doesn't contain any later references to any type of assignment. -- Cid Highwind 18:05, January 29, 2011 (UTC) :@Distantlycharmed, I don't think there's any debate about the "reinstated" portion; that seems to be settled as being speculative. It's the fact that he is referred to in the film Star Trek that's under debate. It's proven, confirmed fact that he is, yet some people apparently don't want to accept that. --Defiant 19:21, January 29, 2011 (UTC) ::: I'd just like to throw in my 2 cents here. The writers obviously intended this to be the same Jonathan Archer and Porthos so I think this should be in there. We have no idea that he was 100-odd years old by this time, perhaps he was frozen in stasis, perhaps he travelled through time and couldn't get back? There's a hundred different sci-fi technobabble explanations for that. On other articles which have inconsistencies, we have always gone with what is mentioned in canon along with any background/production info to come to a conclusion. I don't see how this is any different. I thought I our job was just to document the occurance, not explain how or why it could be him? -- TrekFan Open a channel 19:28, January 29, 2011 (UTC) ::::We know that he was referred to, but a retired military person is referred to by their rank at retirement. It doesn't mean that he was reinstated. A 100+ year old dog? That's definitely BG info noting the stupidity :) -- sulfur 19:32, January 29, 2011 (UTC)